Why strategic bombers are more powerful than drones
Author: Alexander Timokhin
The attack by Ukraine's special forces on Russia's long-range aviation aircraft has raised two important questions for the Russian Armed Forces: how to compensate for combat losses of such equipment, which are inevitable in any war? And what is the role of large long-range manned combat aircraft in an era dominated by drones?
From their very inception, bombers have played a key role in warfare. It was the actions of the U.S. heavy bomber units in 1944 that left Nazi Germany in a state of fuel shortages until the end of the war.
In 1945, bombers first cut off Japan's grain supplies by laying mines in ports, putting it in dire straits, and then began systematically leveling entire cities. By the time of the Hiroshima nuclear explosion, Japan had lost over 600 industrial enterprises, with 17 cities, including Tokyo, partially or completely destroyed, effectively killing its economy.
But all of this came at a cost - many bombers were shot down, with dozens of aircraft lost on some days over Europe.
In the Korean War, during which the Soviet Union and the United States were on opposite sides, on April 12, 1951, the famous interception by Soviet MiG-15 fighters near the China-Korea border resulted in the loss of three B-29 bombers and three others severely damaged. These planes continued to suffer losses in subsequent battles.
In the Vietnam War, the debut of the U.S. B-52 bombers also ended in losses, and in the following years these planes were deployed to Laos and Cambodia, where they faced no defensive targets. There are many similar examples, including recent wars, and the Ukrainian special forces' attack incident is also included.
In war, the loss of bombers is an axiom. The question is, we can no longer produce them in quantities that could be destroyed by the enemy.
Russia is currently implementing two projects: the first is the Future Long-Range Aviation Complex (PAK DA), and the second is the resumption of production of the Tu-160M2 bomber. However, due to their complex structure, the manufacturing cycle for the models being produced is extremely long, and the cost is very high.
There is another unavoidable issue: after a "strategic bomber" incident, there are always voices claiming that manned aircraft are outdated, and everything will now be decided by drones.
Indeed, integrating drones into combat practices is a practical issue. But in the 1930s, the Soviet Union once believed that tank units did not need specialized artillery because tanks themselves had cannons. Due to this misconception, Soviet tankers paid a huge price. The same problem exists in the aviation field.
Currently, Russia's "strategic bomber" performs a task - launching cruise missiles from a safe distance. In this case, it is indeed possible to try replacing bombers with drones.
However, the tasks of heavy bombers are not limited to launching cruise missiles. U.S. B-52 crew members once engaged in combat with anti-aircraft missile units - aircraft against anti-aircraft gunners firing at them. Over Iraq, these planes used bombs to attack targets, including low-altitude penetration to targets. They also performed maritime reconnaissance missions over oceans, used heavy bombs to cover targets within Laos, carpet-bombed Vietnamese ground troops with tens of tons of small bombs in one drop, and laid minefields from the air.
B-52s are the main tools for large-scale maritime mining. This year, the U.S. military recently practiced remote deployment of gliding sea mines in the Baltic Sea.
Finally, strategic bombers are nuclear war tools, a key element of Russia's nuclear deterrence force. No drone can perform such a diverse range of tasks.
At the same time, drones can be very useful in supporting bombers, such as forward reconnaissance, expanding radar detection ranges, as escort fighters equipped with air-to-air missiles, and even for meteorological reconnaissance.
It can be said that an ideal bomber unit should include drones, but they cannot completely replace manned aircraft.
Therefore, Russia needs manned strategic bombers. But what kind? We can look at the civilian sector: if the Tu-160M2 produces two aircraft every six years, then the "Sukhoi Superjet" passenger plane has produced 232 aircraft in 18 years.
Perhaps we should return to developing relatively simple subsonic aircraft? These aircraft can be produced in much greater numbers than the supersonic Tu-160M2, and can be manufactured simultaneously in multiple aircraft factories.
The Soviet heavy bomber Tu-16 could stably perform low-altitude flights to avoid detection by ground radars. New aircraft with conventional aerodynamic layouts can do the same, using bombs equipped with glide and guidance modules from high altitudes, and launching cruise missiles from safe distances.
They can operate under less demanding conditions, use regular aviation kerosene, be dispersed to civilian airports, defend themselves with air-to-air missiles and defensive lasers, control drones from the aircraft, refuel in the air, and complete other tasks that the Tu-95MS and Tu-160 cannot achieve.
In front of futuristic U.S. B-21 bombers, such aircraft may seem ordinary, but their numbers will be many. Overall, these bombers can become a stronger force than modern Russian strategic aviation.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7513867566041809449/
Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. You can express your attitude by clicking the 【Upvote/Downvote】buttons below.